ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 90-810

Strength of Epoxy-Coated Reinforcing Bar Splices Confined
with Transverse Reinforcement
by B. S. Hamad and J. 0. Jirsa
This paper determines the effect of epoxy-coated transverse reinforcement
on the strength of epoxy-coated bar splices. Existing recommendations for
design of splices and anchorage of epoxy-coated reinforcement were re-
viewed and modifications were suggested.
Twelve beams were tested in negative bending with multiple splices in a
constant moment region at the center of the beam. All bars were cast in a
top bar position with more than 12 in. ( 30 em) of concrete below the bars.
Companion specimens were identical except for bar coating. The prime vari-
able was the amount of transverse reinforcement crossing the splitting plane
in the splice region. Other variables included bar size [No. 6 ( 19 mm) and
No. II (36mm)] and bar spacing. The nominal coating thickness of all epoxy-
coated bars was 8 mils (0.2 mm). Failure of all beams was governed by split-
ting of the concrete cover in the splice region.
Test results indicated that the presence of transverse reinforcement in the
splice region increased deformation capacity of the beams and improved an-
chorage strength of epoxy-coated bar splices relative to uncoated bar splices.
The improvement was independent of the number of splices, bar size, or bar
spacing. Using results of this study and results of other tests on epoxy-coated
bar splices in the literature, a comprehensive review of the effect of epoxy
coating on structural aspects of epoxy-coated bar splices was performed. De-
sign equations were recommended, and modifications to the ACI Building
Code ( AC/ 318-89) development and splice length provisions were suggested.
Keywords: anchorage (structural); bonding; detailing; epoxy resins; lap connections;
reinforcing materials; splicing.
Corrosion of reinforcing steel in concrete is the most
common cause of premature deterioration of reinforced con-
crete structures. The corrosion problem continues to drain re-
sources of owners of reinforced concrete structures in both
public and private sectors in the United States and throughout
the world.
Of the many methods of corrosion protection possible, fu-
sion-bonded epoxy coating often offers one of the best com-
binations of protection, ease of use, and economy. The pur-
pose of epoxy coating is to prevent chlorides from reaching
the steel surface. A very important consideration in the use
of epoxy-coated reinforcing bars is the effect of the coating
on the strength of bond between reinforcing bars and con-
crete. Most codes prohibit any nonmetallic coatings from
being applied to reinforcing bars, which may decrease the
bond capacity by preventing adhesion between the bar and the
concrete. ACI 318-89
1
Section 7.4.1 states that bars should
be free of nonmetallic coatings, mud, or oil which may de-
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1993
crease the bond capacity. Epoxy coatings, however, are per-
mitted by Section 7.4.1. Section 3.5.3.7 states that epoxy-
coated reinforcing bars should comply with "Standard Spec-
ification for Epoxy-Coated Reinforcing Steel Bars" (ASTM
A 775).
2
Since the Federal Highway Administration approved the
use of epoxy coating in the early 1970s, epoxy-coated bars
have been used in nearly all types of structures where con-
crete is exposed to a corrosive environment. Epoxy-coated
bars are used in the decks, shafts and foundations, piers, bent
caps, and other bridge-supporting elements. Other applica-
tions include sewage and water treatment plants, cooling
towers and other parts of power plants, chemical plants,
parking garages, refineries, subways, reinforcement for earth
retention, and continuously reinforced concrete pavements.
Before ACI 318-89
1
was issued, epoxy coating was used
without much concern about the anchorage characteristics of
epoxy-coated bars. Bond stresses and bond strength will be
used in this paper to permit comparisons of test results. The
bond stress developed by an anchored bar is simply the force
developed in the bar divided by the surface area of the bar.
Although development lengths are used in design, they do
not permit a meaningful comparison of test data when an-
chorage length is shorter than that needed to develop yield.
Test data available prior to the 1989 ACI Building Code
indicated that reduction in bond strength of epoxy-coated bars
was not excessive.3.4 Based on more recent studies of the bond
strength of epoxy-coated bars,s the basic development length
fctb of a deformed bar (Section 12.2.4.3) was modified to ac-
count for epoxy coating. For bars with cover less than 3db or
clear spacing between the bars less than 6db, the development
length is multiplied by a factor of 1.5. The factor is 1.2 for all
other conditions. Moreover, Section 12.2.4.3 specifies that in
the case of a top bar, defined as a horizontally cast bar with
ACI Structural Journal, V. 90, No. I, January-February 1993. . . .
Received Sept. 16, 1991, and under Institute publicatiOn j)Ohces. COjJY-
right 1993, American Institute. All nghts the making
of copies unless penmsswn IS obtamed from the copynght propnetor.s. Pertment diS-
cussion will be published m the November-December 1993 ACI Structural Journal If
received by July I, 1993.
77
Bilal S. Hamad is an assistant professor on the Faculty of Engineering and Architec-
ture at the American University of Beirut, Lebanon. He received his BE degree from
that university and his MS and PhD degrees from the University of Texas at Austin. His
research interests include plain concrete, and design and behavior of reinforced con-
crete structures.
James 0. Jirsa, FACI, is the Janet S. Cockrell Centennial Professor of Engineering at
the University of Texas at Austin. He is a member of ACI Committees 3/8, Standard
Building Code; and 408, Bond and Development of Reinforcement.
more than 12 in. (30 em) of concrete cast below the bar, the
product of the 1.3 factor for top reinforcement and the factor
for epoxy-coated reinforcement should not be greater than
1.7.
It has been well established that the anchorage strength of
uncoated bars is improved substantially by adding transverse
reinforcement. However, in most previous studies of epoxy-
coated bar splices, 5-7 the effect of transverse reinforcement
was not investigated. One objective of this study was to as-
sess the effect of transverse reinforcement on the bond char-
acteristics of epoxy-coated bar splices relative to uncoated
bar splices. Another objective was to use the results of this
study and results of other tests on epoxy-coated bar splices
in the literature
5

7
to perform a comprehensive review of the
effect of epoxy coating on the structural aspects of epoxy-
coated bar splices. A third objective was to develop (or re-
vise the existing) design recommendations for splice length
and development length of straight epoxy-coated bars.
PREVIOUS STUDIES OF EPOXY-COATED BAR
SPLICES
University of Texas exploratory studies
In an exploratory research program conducted at the Uni-
versity of Texas by Treece and Jirsa,s 21 beams were tested
in 9 series. The variables were bar size [No.6 (19 mm) and
No. 11 (36 mm)], concrete strength [4, 8, and 12 ksi (28, 55,
and 83 MPa)], casting position, and coating thickness [5 and
12 mils (0.13 and 0.3 mm)]. In each series, a different com-
bination of variables was examined, but the only variable
within a series was the coating thickness on the bars.
The beams were tested in negative bending. Each beam in-
cluded three bars in tension, all spliced at the center. The
splice lengths were selected so that the bars would fail in bond
before reaching yield. All the bars of each size were from the
same heat of Grade 60 (414 MPa) steel and had a diamond
deformation pattern. No transverse reinforcement was pro-
vided in the splice region.
In each test, the mode of failure was a splitting failure in
the splice region. Test results showed that epoxy-coated bars
with an average coating thickness above 5 mils (0.13 mm) de-
veloped 67 percent of the bond strength of uncoated bars with
a standard deviation of 9 percent. The reduction in bond was
consistent for the range of variables considered in the study.
Therefore, epoxy-coating was the only variable that caused
reduction in bond strength.
University of California at Berkeley tests
In 1989, DeVries and Moehle6 reported an experimental
study in which 36 beams were tested in 9 series. The first se-
78
ries was a pilot series that did not include epoxy-coated bars,
and each of the next eight series included two uncoated bar
specimens, one with bottom-cast bars and one with top-cast
bars, and two similar epoxy-coated bar specimens. Besides
casting position, other variables included bar size [No.6 (19
mm) and No.9 (28 mm)] and the presence of an antibleeding
agent in the concrete.
Each beam had two longitudinal bars spliced at the center
with No. 3 ( 10-mm) stirrups provided along the splice length.
The splice length was designed to result in a splitting failure
before yielding of the bar. All bars of each size came from
the same heat of Grade 60 ( 414 MPa) steel and had a bamboo
(parallel) deformation pattern except for the pilot series,
which had a chevron pattern. The epoxy coating was nomi-
nally 8 mils (0.2 mm) thick. The beams were tested in nega-
tive bending, and the mode of failure was a splitting failure
at the splice region for all beam tests. .
Test results indicated that epoxy-coated bars developed 84
percent of the bond strength of uncoated bars with a standard
deviation of 10 percent. Based on the test results, De Vries
and Moehle indicated that the effects of casting position and
epoxy coating were not cumulative, and that the modifica-
tion for top-cast epoxy-coated bars relative to bottom-cast
epoxy-coated bars, given in Section 12.2.4.3 of the 1989 ACI
Building Code (ACI 318-89),
1
was not needed. Moreover, the
test results showed that the presence of an anti bleeding agent
in the concrete did not significantly alter the bond stress of
the splice for either top or bottom-cast bars.
University of Kansas tests
In 1990, Choi et a1.7 reported a series of 15 beams tested
in negative bending with multiple splices in the middle and
no stirrups in the splice region. The variables were bar size
[No. 5, 8, and 11 (16, 25, and 36 mm)] and bar deformation
pattern. The mode of failure in all tests was splitting of the
concrete cover in the splice region. Test results indicated that
the ratio of the bond strength of epoxy-coated bar splices to
that of uncoated bar splices (bond ratio) varied from 0.54 to
0.94 with an average value of 0.83 and a standard deviation
ofO.l.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Test specimens
In the research program reported in this paper, 12 beams
(3 series) with multiple splices at the center of the beam were
tested in negative bending. The variables were bar size, bar
spacing, and amount of transverse reinforcement in the splice
region.
The test parameters for each specimen are shown in Table
1. A five-part notation system was used to identify the vari-
ables of each beam. First, the beam is identified in the se-
quence in which it was tested. Second, the bar size [No.6 (19
mm) or No, 11 (36 mm)] is noted. Third, the nominal con-
crete strength (4 ksi) is identified. Fourth, uncoated (U) or
epoxy-coated (C) bars are noted. The digit "3" following the
letter U or C refers to the presence of three splices instead of
two splices, as in the first six beams. The fifth portion indi-
cates the presence of transverse reinforcement in the splice
region, where U represents uncoated ties and C denotes
epoxy-coated ties. The number following U or C is the av-
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1993
Table 1 - Details of beam tests
Coating thickness
Series Specimen db,
Jc'
e,, Nominal, Average, Cb, 2 X Cs, Splice region
number notation in. ksi in. mils mils in. in. stirrups
B-1-11-4-U 1.41 3.7 30 - - 2 4.00 -
B2-II-4-C 1.41 3.7 30 8 8.0 2 4.00 -
Series
B3-11-4-U-UIO 1.41 3.7 30 - - 2 4.00 3 #3@ lOin.
one
B4-II-4-C-C 10 1.41 3.7 30 8 8.6 2 4.00 3 #3@ lOin.
B-5-11-4-U-05 1.41 4.0 30 - - 2 4.00 6#3@ 5 in.
B6-II-4-C-C5 1.41 4.0 30 8 8.8 2 4.00 6#3@ 5 in.
Series
B7-11-4-U3-U5 1.41 4.0 30 - - 2 1.41 6#3@ 5 in.
two
B 8-II-4-C3-C5 1.41 4.0 30 8 8.6 2 1.41 6#3@ 5 in.
B9-6-4-U3 0.75 3.74 18 - - 2 1.25 -
Series
BI0-6-4-C3 0.75 3.74 18 8 6.8 2 1.25 -
three
BII-6-4-U3-U6 0.75 3.74 18 - -
2 1.25 3 #3@ 6in.
B 12-6-4-C3-C6 0.75 3.74 18 8 6.7 2 1.25 3 #3@ 6in.
I ksi = 6.895 MPa; I in.= 25.4 mm; I mil= 0.025; #3 bar= IO-mm diameter.
erage spacing of the ties along the splice length. The absence
of a fifth portion in the notation of a beam indicates that trans-
verse reinforcement was not present in the splice region. As
an example of the notation system, BS-11-4-U-US indicates
that the fifth beam tested included two No. 11 (36-mm) un-
coated bar splices, had a nominal concrete strength of 4 ksi
(28 MPa), and included uncoated ties at an average spacing
of 10 in. (25 em) in the splice region. A concrete cover of 2
in. (5 em) to the reinforcing bar was chosen as a typical side
and top cover for all the beams.
In the six beams of the first series, two No. 11 (36-mm) bar
splices were designed so that the side cover, 2 in. (5 em), was
one-half the clear spacing between splices, 4 in. ( 10 em), and
equal to the top cover. This allowed identical confinement for
both splices by concrete and by any ties crossing the splitting
plane. With 2-in. cover and 4-in. clear spacing, the beam
width was 13.5 in. (34 em). The two beams of the second se-
ries were designed with three No. 11 (36-mm) bar splices,
and the four beams of the third series had three No. 6 ( 19-mm)
bar splices. These clear spacings were at or near the minimum
values allowed in codes. The beam widths were 15.5 in. (39
em) and 11 in. (28 em) in the second and third series, re-
spectively. The cross-sectional details of all beams are shown
in Fig. l. The depth of all specimens was 16 in. (41 em). The
bars were cast in a top position with more than 12 in. (30 em)
of concrete cast below the bars.
The loading system was designed to produce a constant
moment region in the middle of the beam. Reinforcing bars
were spliced at midspan. The splice length was determined
to develop a steel stress Is less than yield, using an empirical
equation developed by Orangun, Jirsa, and Breens
db[__!!._ -so]
4.f]Z
fs = ,
c
1.2+3-+Ktr
db
K
- arr fyr < 3 0 d < 2 5
rr- _.,an -
500sdb db
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1993
(1)
I 13.5"
(34mm)
SERIES ONE:
81, 82, 83,
84,85,86
2" db db 2"15cm)
00 00 00
s
3 #11 bars 41cm)
I 15.5" I
(39mm)
SERIES TWO:
87,88
Fig. ]-Cross-sectional details of beam specimens
where arr = the area of transverse steel crossing the plane of
splitting. The splice length was set at 30 in. for all No. 11 (36-
mm) bars and 18 in. ( 46 em) for the No. 6 ( 19-mm) bars. The
overall lengths of the No.6 (19-mm) and No. 11 (36-mm) bar
specimens were 13 and 21 ft (5 and 6.4 m), respectively (see
Fig. 2).
Materials
Bars ofeachsize,No. 6 (19mm)andNo. 11 (36mm), were
from the same heat of steel and had a parallel (bamboo) de-
formation pattern. This insured that both uncoated and coated
bars in companion specimens had identical rib geometry and
mechanical properties. The bars met ASTM A 615-87a9 and
were Grade 60 (414 MPa). The nominal coating thickness of
the epoxy-coated bars was 8 mils (0.2 mm). The thickness of
the coating was measured with a dry film thickness gage
79

Shear Shear
Span Moment Span
p
p
i"'-l"l+----+!ot----9-'0_"...:.(2_.7_4_m...:.) (15cm)
Constant Shear
Moment Span
Fig. 2-Dimensions and test setup of beam specimens
(Type 1, magnetic pulloff). The average coating thickness for
each epoxy-coated bar specimen is shown in Table 1. The av-
erage coating thickness for the epoxy-coated transverse rein-
forcement was approximately 9 mils (0.23 mm).
A non-air-entrained mix was used. Assuming saturated sur-
face dry conditions for the aggregates, the mix proportions (in
lb) were as follows: cement (Type I), 360 (1600 N); coarse
aggregate, 188 (836 N); sand, 1435 (6380 N); water, 266
(1180 N); and water reducer-retarder, 10.5 oz (310 cm3). Be-
fore casting, additional water was added until a slump of about
3.0 in. (7.5 em) was reached. The concrete compression
strength for each specimen is listed in Table 1.
Test procedure
Load was applied gradually in 1-kip increments until
failure occurred. At each load stage, deflection readings were
taken, and flexural cracks were marked and measured using
a crack width comparator. Additional details of the test pro-
gram and results are given in Reference 10.
SPECIMEN BEHAVIOR AND ANALYSIS OF TEST
RESULTS
General behavior
In all specimens, the mode of failure was splitting of top
concrete cover at the tension face of the splice region, or side
concrete cover in the plane of the splices (side split failure),
or both top and side covers (face-and-side split failure).
First flexural cracks in all beams occurred randomly in the
constant moment region on the tension side of the beams out-
side the splice. As loading continued, cracks formed along
the entire length of the constant moment region including the
splice. Most of the flexural cracks on the tension side of the
beam extended into side faces. In beams with no stirrups
crossing the splitting plane, flexural cracks formed randomly
in the splice region. On the other hand, in beams with stirrups
in the splice region, flexural cracks generally formed at stirrup
locations.
Failure of beams with no stirrups in the splice region was
sudden. Load dropped completely after reaching ultimate. For
80
beams with stirrups in the splice region, failure was gradual.
The load dropped slightly after reaching ultimate and con-
tinued to drop gradually with increasing deflection. After the
test was halted, the top and side concrete covers were removed
to reveal the failure plane in the splice region. In general, it
was more difficult to remove the cover in the uncoated than
in the epoxy-coated beams. After the cover was removed,
concrete deposits were left on the sides of the bar deforma-
tions of uncoated bars, whereas the epoxy-coated bars were
very clean. While the grooves left in the concrete cover by
the uncoated bars were dull and worn in appearance, the con-
crete in contact with the epoxy-coated bars had a smooth
glassy surface, as if a bond-breaker had been applied.
Crack width and spacing
The results indicated that average flexur_al crack width in
the constant moment region outside the splice length was
larger in epoxy-coated bar specimens than in companion un-
coated bar specimens at the same level of stress. As shown
in Table 2, at a given steel stress level, specimens with epoxy-
coated bars had fewer cracks (wider spacing) but the cracks
were wider than in specimens with uncoated bars. The crack
width ratio is the average crack width of an epoxy-coated bar
specimen divided by that of the companion uncoated bar spec-
imen.
Beam stiffness
The stiffness of beams with epoxy-coated bars was com-
pared to that of beams with uncoated bars by plotting steel
stress versus end deflection for each beam specimen. Steel
stress-deflection curves for all specimens in the first series
are shown in Fig. 3. As shown in the curves, there was little
difference in initial stiffness between uncoated and the com-
panion epoxy-coated bar specimens. However, as failure load
is approached and as the amount of transverse reinforcement
in the splice region increases, curves separate, with the coated
bar specimen showing a gradual decrease in stiffness relative
to the uncoated bar specimen.
Bond strength
Bond strength was based on an average stress along the
length of the splice. To evaluate the bond stress u, the total
force developed in the bar Ab/s was divided by the surface
area of the bar along the splice length 1tdbfs
(2)
Steel stress Is was determined using a beam cracked section
analysis. The maximum load Pmax, the calculated ultimate
steel stress /su, and the corresponding bond stress Ut and bond
ratio are listed for each beam in Table 3. The bond ratio is the
bond stress of the epoxy-coated bar specimen divided by that
of the companion uncoated bar specimen.
Bond capacity of No.6 (19-mm) and No. 11 (36-mm) bar
splices improved as the amount of transverse reinforcement
crossing the splitting plane in the splice region increased.
Such reinforcement provides the concrete in the plane of the
splices with more confinement and resistance against split-
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1993
Table 2 - Comparison of average crack widths of beam specimens
Series Specimen Number of
number notation cracks
81-11-4-U 6
82-11-4-C 4
83-11-4-U-01 0 4
Series one
84-11-4-C-CJO 4
85-11-4-U-05 8
86-11-4-C-C5 5
87-11-4-U3-U5 4
Series two
88-11-4-C3-C5 4
89-6-4-03 4
B10-6-4-C3 2
Series three
B11-6-4-U3-U6 3
B 12-6-4-C3-C6 2
I ksi = 6.89 MPa; I mil= 0.025 mm.
ting. The improvement in bond strength was greater for
epoxy-coated bar splices than uncoated bar splices. Results
listed in Table 3 indicate that the bond ratio of coated to un-
coated No. 11 (36-mm) bar splices increased from 0.74 in the
absence of ties in the 30-in. (76-cm) splice region to 0.81
when three No. 3 (10-mm) ties were provided, and to 0.84
when six No. 3 (10-mm) ties were provided. On the other
hand, the bond ratio of coated to uncoated No.6 (19-mm) bar
splices improved from 0.67 in the absence of splice region ties
to 0.74 when three No.3 (10-mm) ties were placed in the 18-
in. (46-cm) splice region.
The improvement in the bond capacity of epoxy-coated bar
splices relative to uncoated bar splices, with ties in the splice
region, was independent of the number of splices, bar size,
or bar spacing.
Evaluation of bond splice tests
Beams with no stirrups in splice region-Four beams with
no ties in the splice region were tested in this study (B 1, B2,
B3, and B4). All the beams included in Treece and Jirsa's
studys and in the study reported by Choi et aU had no ties in
the splice region.
Measured bond strength of each beam was compared with
the bond stresses implied by the current ACI Building Code
(ACI 318-89)
1
specifications for calculating splice lengths.
Taking R.s = 1.3 R.db according to Section 12.15 of the code, and
using the equation given in Section 12.2.2 with the limit spec-
ified in Section 12.2.3.6 gives the following
0.04Abfy db/y
R.s = 1.3fdb, fidb = r7' :2: 0.03 r- '
-vi! -vf!
{11 100 psi (3)
(
" - 0.02Abfy > db/y IF'< 0 69 MP )
-tdb- {11 _
8
{11, "JJc _ . a
Combining the preceding equations with undb = Abfy
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1993
K,,
0
0
1.02
1.02
2.04
2.04
1.36
1.36
0
0
2.13
2.13
Crack width comparison
Steel Crack
stress Average width ratio,
level, crack width, coated/
ksi mils uncoated
23 7.2 -
23 10.4 1.44
29 12.0 -
29 11.0 0.92
33 11.4 -
33 18.4 1.61
27 10.1 -
27 24.5 2.43
30 4.0 -
30 7.4 1.85
30 4.7 -
30 7.8 1.70
45
300

40
10 20 30(mm)
CJ)
30
en
200
w
MPa a:
1-
20
en
..J
81-11-4-U
100
w
10
w
82-11-4-C
1-
en
0
45
300

40
CJ)
30
en
200
w

MPa a:
1-
20
en

..J
100
w
10
w
1-
en
0
45

40
CJ)
en
30
w
a:
MPa
1-
20
en
..J
w
10
w
1-
en
0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
DEFLECTION, Inches
Fig. 3-Variations of steel stress versus end deflection, Series
One
u = 6.12 fl1 6.41{71, {11 100 psi
db
( u = 13 fJ: 0.5{11, {11 0.69 MPa)
(4)
The modification factor for top-cast bars is 1.3 according to
81
Table 3 -Test results of beam specimens
Series Specimen
number notation cldb
B1-ll-4U 1.42
B2-ll-4-C 1.42
Series
B3-ll-4-U-Ul0 1.42
one
B4-11-4-C-C10 1.42
B5-11-4-U-U5 1.42
B6-11-4-C-C5 1.42
Series
B7-ll-4-U3-U5 0.50
two
B8-11-4-C3-C5 0.50
B9-6-4-U3 0.83
Series
B10-6-4-C3 0.83
three
Bll-6-4-U3-U6 0.83
B 12-6-4-C3-C6 0.83
*Bond ratio= u, (coated) I u, (uncoated).
I ksi = 6.895 MPa; I kip= 4.45 kN.
Table 4 - Values for Cm, S. I. units
1.0
Bottom casting 6.12 [13]
For uncoated bars
Top casting 4.71 [10]
Bottom casting 4.08 [8.7]
For epoxy-coated bars
Top casting 3.60 [7.6]
I'/ db
21.28
21.28
21.28
21.28
21.28
21.28
21.28
21.28
24.00
24.00
24.00
24.00
1.4
4.37 [9.3]
3.36 [7.1]
2.91 [6.2]
2.57 [5.5]
Section 12.2.4.1. Also, the applicable factor for epoxy coating
is 1.5 according to Section 12.2.4.3. However, the product of
the factors for top reinforcement and epoxy coating is taken
as 1.7 according to Section 12.2.4.3. If the modification factor
for bar spacing, cover, and transverse reinforcement from Sec-
tion 12.2.3 is 1.0 or 1.4, the equation for bond stress is u = Cm
.fJ1 I db and values for Cm are shown in Table 4. The upper
limit on u, in any case, is 6.41 .fJ1 [0.051 .flll with ..Jll::;;
100 psi [(0.69 MPa)].
The measured bond strength of each beam was divided by
the predicted value using the values of Cm from Table 4 to ob-
tain the bond efficiencies (the measured bond relative to that
obtained using ACI Building Code provisions) listed in Table
5. Mean bond efficiency for the uncoated bars is 2.38 with a
standard deviation of 0. 71, and mean bond efficiency for the
epoxy-coated bars is 2.41 with a standard deviation of 0.49.
Current ACI provisions are conservative for all the beams in-
cluded in Table 5.
Beams with stirrups in the splice region-Eight beams
were tested with ties in the splice region in this research pro-
gram. Also, beam tests reported by De Vries and Moehle6 in-
cluded No.3 ( 10-mm) ties in the splice region.
A summary of test data of beams with ties in the splice re-
gion is shown in Table 6. The transverse reinforcement para-
meter K,, is larger than 1.0 for all the beams. Bond ratios
(coated to uncoated) vary from 0.71 to 0.99 with an average
value of 0.84 and a standard deviation of 0.10. Wide scatter
of bond ratios shows that there is no general trend based on
82
Measured bond stress
P""'",
u,,
*
K, kips
/su,
ksi psi Bond ratio
0 18.0 34.8 409 -
0 13.0 25.6 301 0.74
1.02 19.6 37.7 443 -
1.02 15.6 30.5 358 0.81
2.04 21.7 41.6 470 -
2.04 18.0 34.8 393 0.84
1.36 25.5 33.0 388 -
1.36 21.6 28.2 331 0.85
0 20.2 62.2 648 -
0 13.3 41.7 435 0.67
2.13 22.4 68.8 716 -
2.13 16.5 51.1 532 0.74
concrete strength, bar size, cldb, f!sldb, or K,, values exceeding
1.0. A plot of bond ratios versus Krr for beams listed in Table
6 and Treece and Jirsa's beams is shown in Fig. 4. Because
of the wide scatter of the bond ratios, a value of 0.83 (very
close to the average) seems reasonable for design purposes
for cases when Krr exceeds 1.0. The anchorage length of
epoxy-coated reinforcing bars relative to uncoated bars would
be increased by 20 percent when confinement by transverse
reinforcement exceeds some limiting value.
In Table 6, bond efficiencies relative to Eq. (2) are listed
for each beam. The mean bond efficiency for the uncoated
bars is 2.74 with a standard deviation of 0.41, and the mean
bond efficiency for the coated bars is 3.14 with a standard de-
viation of 0.50. As was the case with beams with no ties in
the splice region, current ACI Building Code provisions are
quite conservative for all the beams included in Table 5.
Assessment of 1989 ACI Building Code bond provisions-
In Section 12.1.2 of ACI 318-89,
1
a limit of 100 psi (0.69
MPa) is imposed on the value of f.l1. In the Commentary to
Section 12.2.2, the ACI Building Code states that research on
anchorage capacity of bars in high-strength concretes is not
sufficient to allow using a higher value than 100 psi for ..Jll
(0.69 MPa). However, test results listed in Tables 5 and 6
show that, for bars in beams with high-strength concrete
(above 10 ksi), ACI provisions are more conservative than for
lower strength concrete. This implies that the 100 psi limit on
the value of ..Jll could be increased.
In Section 12.2.3.l(b) of ACI 318-89, a modification factor
of 1.0 is applied to basic development length to account for
bar spacing, amount of cover, and enclosing transverse rein-
forcement. The conditions are that cover must not be less than
minimum cover requirements of Section 7. 7.1, and bars must
be enclosed with transverse reinforcement along the devel-
opment length with Arr :2: dbsN/40. Most beams tested by De-
Vries and Moehle and listed in Table 6 satisfied transverse re-
inforcement requirements, but a value of 1.0 could not be
used because the cover was 1.125 in. (30 mm), whereas the
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1993
r
Table 5 - Summary of test data for beams with no stirrups in splice region
Casting f/, u, Bond*
Beam notation Bar type position ksi Bar size c/db f,/db psi ratio Ur/UAC/
BI-11-4-U u Top 3.7 #II 1.42 21.28 409 - 2.82
B2-11-4-C c Top 3.7 #II 1.42 21.28 301 0.74 2.71
B9-6-4-U3 u Top 3.7 #6 0.83 24.00 648 - 2.36
BI0-6-4-C3 c Top 3.7 #6 0.83 24.00 435 0.67 2.07
Treece and Jirsas
0-11-4 u Top 5.0 #II 1.42 25.53 420 - 2.49
12-11-4 c Top 5.0 #II 1.42 25.53 280 0.65 2.17
5-11-4 c Top 5.0 #II 1.42 25.53 300 0.70 2.32
O-ll-4b u Bot. 4.3 #II 1.42 25.53 450 - 2.22
12-11-4b c Bot. 4.3 #II 1.42 25.53 240 0.54 1.78
0-11-8 u Top 8.3 #II 1.42 12.77 790 - 3.64
12-11-8 c Top 8.3 #II 1.42 12.77 500 0.63 3.01
0-11-12 u Top 10.5 #II 1.42 12.77 920 - 3.86
12-11-12 c Top 10.5 #II 1.42 12.77 660 0.72 3.62
0-11-12b u Bot. 9.6 #II 1.42 12.77 840 - 2.77
12-ll-12b c Bot. 9.6 #II 1.42 12.77 540 0.64 2.67
Choi et aJ.7
u Bot. 5.4 #5
Group SPI
c Bot. 5.4 #5
u Bot. 6.0 #6
c Bot. 6.0 #6
Group SP2
u Bot. 6.0 #6
c Bot. 6.0 #6
u Bot. 5.9 #8
c Bot. 5.9 #8
Group SP3
u Bot. 5.9 #8
c Bot. 5.9 #8
u Bot. 5.9 #II
c Bot. 5.9 #II
Group SP4
u Bot. 5.9 #II
c Bot. 5.9 #II
*u, (Coated) I u (Uncoated)
I ksi = 6.895 MPa; #II (36 mm); #8 (25 mm); #6 (19 mm); #5 (16 mm).
minimum cover required (Section 7.7.1) is 1.5 in. (38 mm).
Based on available test data, it would be more appropriate to
change the limit set on the cover in Section 12.2.3.l(b) from
the requirements of Section 7.7.1 to one bar diameter db.
Concerning Section 12.2.4.3 of the ACI Building Code, it
was recommended earlier that the 1.2 modification factor also
be applied to epoxy-coated bars enclosed by ties satisfying Krr
;;::: 1.0, which results in Arr;;::: dbsN/120. Computed bond effi-
ciencies of epoxy-coated top-cast bars relative to Eq. (2) listed
in Tables 5 and 6 indicate that the 1.7 factor recommended
by ACI 318-89 for the combined effect of top casting and
epoxy coating is very high. Top bars included in this research
program, in Treece and Jirsa's studys and in DeVries and
Moehle's study,6 had approximately 12.5 to 14.5 in. (32 to 37
em) of fresh concrete cast below the bars. This is close to the
minimum amount of fresh concrete below the bar [ (12 in. (30
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1993
1.60 19.20 797 - 1.70
1.60 19.20 592 0.74 1.74
1.33 16.00 675 - 1.49
1.33 16.00 634 0.94 2.11
1.33 16.00 761 - 1.68
1.33 16.00 577 0.76 1.92
1.50 16.00 627 - 1.86
1.50 16.00 561 0.90 2.49
1.50 16.00 630 - 1.86
1.50 16.00 538 0.85 2.39
1.42 17.02 552 - 2.33
1.42 17.02 391 0.67 2.48
1.42 17.04 517 - 2.18
1.42 17.02 420 0.67 2.66
em)] set by the ACI Building Code in the definition of a top-
cast bar. However, tests done at the University of Texas on
effect of casting position on bond strength of reinforcing
bars
11
indicated that bars cast with 1 to 6ft (30 to 180 em) of
fresh concrete below the bars developed more than 80 per-
cent of the bond strength of bottom-cast bars (110.8 = 1.25 <
1.3, top bar factor of ACI 318-89). Based on available test
data, it is suggested that when factors for top casting and
epoxy coating are both applicable, the larger of the two fac-'
tors should control.
Based on a comparison of all available splice data with cur-
rent ACI Building Code bond specifications, it is evident that
factors for splices, top casting, epoxy coating, cover, spacing,
and transverse reinforcement are not all cumulative. "Worst"
case conditions are not likely to occur simultaneously for all
critical parameters. In cases where all these factors are ap-
83
Table 6 - Summary of test data for beams with stirrups in splice region
Bond
efficiency
Casting fc',
u, relative to
Beam notation position ksi Bar size ddb f/db Krr psi Bond ratio Eq. (2)
B3-11-4-U-U10 Top 3.7 #11 1.42 21.28 1.02 443 - 3.06
B4-11-4-C-C 10 Top 3.7 #11 1.42 21.28 1.02 358 0.81 3.23
B5-11-4-U-U5 Top 3.7 #11 1.42 21.28 2.04 470 - 3.24
B6-11-4-C-C5 Top 3.7 #11 1.42 21.28 2.04 393 0.84 3.54
B7-11-4-U3-U5 Top 4.0 #11 0.50 21.28 1.36 388 - 2.57
B8-11-4-C3-C5 Top 4.0 #11 0.50 21.28 1.36 331 0.85 2.88
B11-6-4-U3-U6 Top 3.7 #6 0.83 24.00 2.13 716 - 2.61
B 12-6-4-C3-C6 Top 3.7 #6 0.83 24.00 2.13 532 0.74 2.53
DeVries and Moeh1e6
8G-188-P9 Bot. 8.6 #9 1.00
8G-18B-E9 Bot. 8.6 #9 1.00
8G-18T-P9 Top 8.6 #9 1.00
8G-18T-E9 Top 8.6 #9 1.00
8N-18B-P9 Bot. 7.7 #9 1.00
8N-18B-E9 Bot. 7.7 #9 1.00
8N-18T-9P Top 7.7 #9 1.00
8N-18T-9P Top 7.7 #9 1.00
8G-9B-P6 Bot. 8.9 #6 1.50
8G-9B-E6 Bot. 8.9 #6 1.50
8G-9T-P6 Top 8.9 #6 1.50
8G-9T-E6 Top 8.9 #6 1.50
8N-9B-P6 Bot. 8.3 #6 1.50
8N-9B-E6 Bot. 8.3 #6 1.50
8N-9T-P6 Top 8.3 #6 1.50
8N-9T-E6 Top 8.3 #6 1.50
10G-12B-P9 Bot. 9.7 #9 1.00
10G-12B-E9 Bot. 9.7 #9 1.00
10G-12T-P9 Top 9.7 #9 1.00
10G-12T-E9 Top 9.7 #9 1.00
10N-12B-P9 Bot. 9.8 #9 1.00
10N-12B-E9 Bot. 9.8 #9 1.00
10N-12T-P9 Top 9.8 #9 1.00
10N-12T-E9 Top 9.8 #9 1.00
15G-12B-P9 Bot. 16.1 #9 1.00
15G-12B-E9 Bot. 16.1 #9 1.00
15G-12T-P9 Top 16.1 #9 1.00
15G-12T-E9 Top 16.1 #9 1.00
15N-12B-P9 Bot. 13.4 #9 1.00
15N-12B-E9 Bot. 13.4 #9 1.00
15N12T-P9 Top 13.4 #9 1.00
15N-12T-E9 Top 13.4 #9 1.00
I ksi = 6.895 MPa; #II (36 mm); #9 (28 mm); #6 (19 mm).
plicable, it is recommended that an upper factor of 2.0 be set
on the product of modification factors for all cases of un-
coated and epoxy-coated reinforcing bars.
Using modifications to the 1989 ACI Building Code just
recommended for anchorage, bond efficiencies for all avail-
84
15.96 2.55 826 - 2.30
15.96 2.55 628 0.76 2.63
15.96 2.55 758 - 2.75
15.96 2.55 663 0.87 3.14
15.96 2.55 814 - 2.40
15.96 2.55 607 0.75 2.69
15.96 2.55 652 - 2.50
15.96 2.55 647 0.99 3.25
12.00 7.68 1458 - 2.66
12.00 7.68 1057 0.72 2.90
12.00 7.68 1339 - 3.18
12.00 7.68 1019 0.76 3.16
12.00 7.68 1167 - 2.20
12.00 7.68 896 - 2.54
12.00 7.68 1026 - 2.51
12.00 7.68 814 0.79 2.61
10.64 3.83 887 - 2.33
10.64 3.83 732 0.83 2.88
10.64 3.83 771 - 2.63
10.64 3.83 747 0.97 3.33
10.64 3.83 885 - 2.31
10.64 3.83 806 0.91 3.16
10.64 3.83 729 - 2.47
10.64 3.83 682 0.94 3.03
10.64 3.83 1155 - 2.98
10.64 3.83 897 0.78 3.48
10.64 3.83 1062 - 3.56
10.64 3.83 939 0.88 4.12
10.64 3.83 1191 - 3.08
10.64 3.83 850 0.71 3.29
10.64 3.83 1044 - 3.50
10.64 3.83 1021 0.98 4.48
able splice tests were reevaluated and are shown in Tables 7
and 8. For beams with no ties in the splice region, mean bond
efficiency dropped from 2.38 to 2.20 for uncoated bars, and
from 2.41 to 1.67 for coated bars. Moreover, for beams with
. ties in the splice region, mean bond efficiency dropped from
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1993
2.74 to 2.10 for uncoated bars and from 3.14 to 1.82 for coated
bars.
Design recommendations
Based on the test results and on an analysis of available
test data on splice tests, the following recommendations are
proposed:
1. The upper limit of 100 psi (0.69 MPa) set on the value
of .ft' in Section 12.1.2 of ACI 318-89 could be raised to a
value of 120 to 130 psi (0.83 to 0.90 MPa).
2. Section 12.2.3.l(b) of the 1989 ACI Building Code pro-
vides conditions which, if satisfied, allow the use of a modi-
fication factor of 1.0 to account for the beneficial effects of
bar spacing, amount of cover, and enclosing transverse rein-
forcement. Section 12.2.3.l(b) could be changed from "min-
imum cover not less than specified in 7. 7.1" to "minimum
cover not less than db" where db is the diameter of the bar
being developed.
3. Section 12.2.3.2, which specifies a modification factor
of 2.0 to account for bar spacing, amount of cover, and en-
closing transverse reinforcement, could be changed to read
"For bars with cover of db or less and with clear spacing 2db
or less, and without transverse reinforcement along the de-
velopment length" ( ... 2.0). The Commentary should indicate
that Section 12.2.3.2 will control only in rare cases where
bars are closely spaced (minimum spacing), have minimum
cover, and do not have minimum transverse reinforcement
along the development length. A minimum value similar to
that indicated in the next section should be sufficient.
4. To account for epoxy-coated bars enclosed or not en-
closed by transverse reinforcement and to account for the
combined effect of top casting and epoxy coating, Section
12.2.4.3 on epoxy-coated reinforcement can be changed to
read as follows:
12.2.4.3 - Epoxy-coated reinforcement
(a) Bars with cover less than 3db or clear spacing between
bars less than 6db ................................................................................. 1.5
(b) Bars with cover larger than 3db and clear spacing between
bars larger than 6db ............................................................................. 1.2
(c) Bars with transverse reinforcement A1, dsN along
the development length, regardless of the aiJgunt of cover
or clear spacing between bars .............................................................. l.2
For epoxy-coated top reinforcement the larger of the
factors for top reinforcement of 12.2.4.1 and the applicable
factor for epoxy-coated reinforcement of 12.2.4.3 shall
be used.
5. Add a new section 12.2.4.4:
12.2.4.4-The basic development length db modified by factors from
Sections 12.2.3.1, 12.2.3.2, 12.2.3.3, 12.2.4.1, or 12.2.4.3 need not
exceed 2.0 db
6. Add a new paragraph to Section 12.15.1:
The splice length modified by the factors in Section 12.15.1 need not
exceed 2.0 db
CONCLUSIONS
Based on an analysis of test results of 12 beam splice tests,
review of all available epoxy-coated bar splice data, and eval-
uation of ACI Building Code bond provisions, the following
conclusions are made:
1. Bond strength of epoxy-coated No. 11 (36-mm) bar
splices relative to uncoated bar splices improved from 74 per-
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1993
- "0
1.0 Q)
ca
(1 I 1.2)
0
Recommended
0
c:
0.8
2.
i ::I
........
--------------------------
-"0
0.6
(1 I 1.5)
Q)
ca
ACI 318-89
8
'5'
0.4
II
0
D Top Cast

0.2

Bottom Cast
a:
Cl
z
0.0
0
co 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
ktr = atr fyt
I 500 sdb
Fig. 4-Variation of bond ratio (coated to uncoated) with
amount of transverse reinforcement crossing splitting plane
cent, in the absence of transverse reinforcement crossing the
splitting plane in the splice region, to around 80 to 85 percent
when transverse reinforcement was provided. The improve-
ment was independent of the number of splices or bar spacing.
For No. 6 (19-mm) bar splices, the improvement was from
67 to 74 percent.
2. ACI Building Code (ACI 318-89)
1
bond specifications
for uncoated and epoxy-coated bars are quite conservative
when compared to the results of all available splice tests with
and without ties in the splice region. Modifications to ACI
318-89 development and splice length provisions are sug-
gested to better reflect the observed bond strength of bottom-
cast and top-cast uncoated and epoxy-coated reinforcing bars.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Texas Department
of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration (Project No. 3-
5-88/90-1181) for this project. The help and interest of Mr. James Wall of
the TxDOT and Peter Chang of the FHA was most appreciated. The project
was administered by the Center for Transportation Research and conducted
at the Ferguson Structural Engineering Laboratory of the University of Texas
at Austin. The research formed part of the PhD degree requirements for Mr.
Hamad. The contents of this paper reflect the views of the authors who are
responsible for the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do
not necessarily reflect the official view or policies of the TxDOT or FHA.
This paper does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
c
NOTATION
area of transverse reinforcement crossing plane of splitting
adjacent to single anchored reinforcing bar
AuiN
area of one reinforcing bar being spliced or developed
total cross-sectional area of transverse reinforcement (stirrup or
tie) with a spacings perpendicular to plane of bars being spliced
or developed
smaller of Cb or c,
85
Table 7 - Effect of proposed modifications to ACI 318-89 on bond efficiencies, beams with no stirrups in
splice region
Predicted bond stress Bond efficiency relative to
ACI 318-89,
u,, ACI 318-89, modified, ACI 318-89,
Beam notation Bar type psi psi psi ACI 318-89 modified
81-11-4-U u 409 145 172 2.82 2.38
82-11-4-C c 301 Ill 172 2.71 1.75
B9-6-4-U3 u 648 274 325 2.36 1.99
B10-6-4-C3 c 435 210 325 2.07 1.34
Treece and Jirsa5
0-11-4 u 420 169 200 2.49 2.10
12-11-4 c 280 129 200 2.17 1.40
5-11-4 c 300 129 200 2.32 1.50
O-ll-4b u 450 203 203 2.22 2.22
12-11-4b c 240 135 184 1.78 1.30
0-11-8 u 790 217 257 3.64 3.07
12-11-8 c 500 166 257 3.01 1.95
0-11-12 u 920 238 289 3.86 3.18
12-11-12 c 660 182 289 3.62 2.28
O-ll-12b u 840 304 304 2.76 2.76
12-ll-12b c 540 202 276 2.67 1.96
Choi et aJ.7
Group
u 797 469 469 1.70 1.70
SPl
c 592 341 465 1.74 1.27
u 675 452 452 1.49 1.49
Group
c 634 301 411 2.11 !.54
SP2
u 761 452 452 1.68 1.68
c 577 301 411 1.92 1.40
u 627 338 338 1.86 1.86
Group
c 561 225 307 2.49 1.83
SP3
u 630 338 338 1.86 1.86
c 538 225 207 2.39 1.75
u 552 237 237 2.33 2.33
Group
c 391 168 216 2.48 1.81
SP4
u 517 237 237 2.18 2.18
c 420 !58 216 2.66 1.94
Uncoated (U) bars
Mean bond efficiency 2.38 2.20
Standard deviation 0.71 0.51
Epoxy-coated (C) bars
Mean bond efficiency 2.41 1.67
Standard deviation 0.49 0.30
I ksi = 6.895 MPa.
c,
86
clear (bottom or top) cover to main reinforcement
half clear spacing between bars or splices or half available
concrete width per bar or splice resisting splitting in failure plane
diameter of reinforcing bar
compressive strength of concrete
stress in reinforcing bar
ultimate stress in reinforcing bar
yield strength of anchored bar
yield strength of transverse reinforcement
K, index of transverse reinforcement provided along anchored bar,
(a,Jyr} I (500 sdb)
edb basic development length of anchored bar
e, length of lap splice
N number of bars in layer being spliced or developed
Pnuu = maximum applied load
s spacing of stirrups or ties
u average bond stress
u, average bond stress corresponding to maximum applied load
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1993
~ - ~ ~ = ~ = = = = = = =
Table 8 - Effect of proposed modifications to ACI 318-89 on bond efficiencies, beams and stirrups in
splice region
Predicted bond stress Bond efficiency using
Beam notation Bar type u,,psi ACI 318-89, psi ACI 318-89, modified, psi ACI 318-89 ACI 318-89, modified
B3-11-4-U-U10 u 443 145 172 3.06 2.58
B4-11-4-C-C 10 c 358 Ill 172 2.23 2.08
B5-11-4-U-U5 u 470 145 172 3.24 2.73
B6-11-4-C-C5 c 393 Ill 172 3.54 2.28
B7-ll-4-U3-U5 u 388 !51 179 2.57 2.17
B8-11-4-C3-C5 c 331 115 179 2.88 1.85
B ll-6-4-U3-U6 u 716 274 324 2.61 2.21
B 12-6-4-C3-C6 c 532 210 324 2.53 1.64
DeVries and MoehJe6
8G-18B-P9 u 826 359 359 2.30 2.30
-
8G-18B-E9 c 628 239 326 2.63 1.93
8G-18T-P9 u 758 276 327 2.75 2.31
8G-18T-E9 c 663 211 327 3.14 2.03
8N-18B-P9 u 814 339 339 2.40 2.40
8N-18B-E9 c 607 226 308 2.69 1.97
8N-18T-P9 u 652 261 309 2.50 2.11
8N-18T-E9 c 647 199 309 3.25 2.09
8G-9B-P6 u 1458 548 603 2.66 2.42
8G-9B-E6 c 1057 365 603 2.90 1.75
8G-9T-P6 u 1339 421 589 3.18 2.27
8G-9T-E6 c 1019 322 589 3.16 1.73
8N-9B-P6 u 1167 531 584 2.20 2.00
8N-9B-E6 c 896 353 584 2.54 1.53
8N-9T-P6 u 1026 408 571 2.51 1.80
8N-9T-E6 c 814 312 571 2.61 1.43
10G-12B-P9 u 887 381 533 2.33 1.66
10G-12B-E9 c 732 254 445 2.88 1.64
10G-12T-P9 u 771 293 410 2.63 1.88
10G-12T-E9 c 747 224 410 3.33 1.82
10N-12B-P9 u 885 383 536 2.31 1.65
10N-12B-E9 c 806 255 446 3.16 1.81
10N-12T-P9 u 729 295 413 2.47 1.77
10N-12T-E9 c 682 225 413 3.03 1.65
15G-12B-P9 u 1155 387 687 2.98 1.68
15G-12B-E9 c 897 258 573 3.48 1.57
15G-12T-P9 u 1062 298 530 3.56 2.00
15G-12T-E9 c 939 228 530 4.12 1.77
15N-12B-P9 u 1191 387 628 3.08 1.90
15N-12B-E9 c 850 258 523 3.29 1.63
15N-12T-P9 u 1044 298 484 3.50 2.16
15N-12T-E9 c 1021 228 484 4.48 2.11
Uncoated (U) bars
Mean bond efficiency 2.74 2.10
Standard deviation 0.41 0.31
Epoxy-coated bars
Mean bond efficiency 3.14 1.82
Standard deviation 0.50 0.22
I ksi = 6.89 MPa.
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1993 87
CONVERSION FACTORS
1 mm = 0.039 in.
1 MPa = 0.145 ksi
REFERENCES
l. ACI Committee 318, "Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete and Commentary (ACI 318-89/ ACI 318R-89),'' American Con-
crete Institute, Detroit, 1989, 353 pp.
2. "Standard Specification for Epoxy-Coated Reinforcing Steel Bars
(ASTM A 775-86)," 1986 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM,
Philadelphia.
3. Mathey, R. G., and Clifton, J. R., "Bond of Coated Reinforcing Bars
in Concrete," Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 102, No. STI,
Jan. 1976,pp. 215-229.
4. Johnston, D. W., and Zia, P., "Bond Characteristics of Epoxy-Coated
Reinforcing Bars," Department of Civil Engineering, North Carolina State
University, Report No. FHW A/NC/82-002, Aug. 1982, 163 pp.
5. Treece, R. A., and Jirsa, J. 0., "Bond Strength of Epoxy-Coated Rein-
forcing Bars," AC/ Materials Journal, V. 86, No.2, Mar.-Apr. 1989, pp. 167-
174.
88
6. De Vries, R. A., and Moehle, J. P., "Lap Splice Strength of Plain and
Epoxy-Coated Reinforcement,'' Department of Structural Engineering, Me-
chanics, and Materials, School of Civil Engineering, University of California
at Berkeley, 1989, 117 pp.
7. Choi, 0. C.; Hadje-Ghaffari, H.; Darwin, D.; and McCabe, S. L., ''Bond
of Epoxy-Coated Reinforcement to Concrete: Bar Parameter," University
of Kansas Transportation Center, Report No. 90-1, Jan. 1990, 43 pp.
8. Orangun, C. 0.; Jirsa, J. 0.; and Breen, J. E., "Reevaluation of Test
Data on Development Length and Splices," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V.
74, No.3, Mar. 1977, pp. 114-122.
9. "Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain Billet-Steel Bars for
Concrete Reinforcement (ASTM A 615-87a),'' 1987 Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, ASTM, Philadelphia.
10. Hamad, Bilal S.; Jirsa, James 0.; and d' Abreu de Paulo, Natalie 1., "Ef-
fect of Epoxy Coating on Bond and Anchorage of Reinforcement in Con-
crete Structures," CTR Report 1181-lF, Project No. 3-5-88/90-1181, Bond
and Anchorage of Epoxy-Coated Reinforcement, Dec. 1990.
11. Luke, J. J.; Hamad, B. S.; Jirsa, J. 0.; and Breen, J. E., "Influence of
Casting Position on Development and Splice Length of Reinforcement,"
Research Report 242-1, Center for Transportation Research, University of
Texas at Austin, June 1981, !55 pp.
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1993